This is not a question of whether or not evolution is crazy, but how crazy it seems at first glance.
That is, when we discard our experiences and look at claims as if through new eyes, what do we find when we look at evolution? I Believe we can find a great deal of common ground with this question, because when I discard my experience as an animal breeder, when I discard my knowledge, and what I've been taught, I might look at evolution with the same skepticism as someone who has either never been taught anything about it, or someone who has been taught to distrust it.
Personally my mind goes to the keratinised spines on the tongues of cats. Yes, cats have fingernails growing out of their tongues! Gross, right? Well, these particular fingernails have evolved into perfect little brushes for the animal's fur. But I think of that first animal with a horrid growth of keratin on its poor tongue. The poor thing didn't die immediately, and this fits perfectly with what I said about two steps back paying for one forward. This detrimental mutation didn't hurt the animal enough for the hapless thing to die of it, but surely it caused some suffering. And persevering thing that he was, he reproduced despite his disability (probably in a time of plenty that allowed that). But did he have the growths anywhere else? It isn't beyond reason to think of them protruding from the corners of his eyes or caking up more and more on the palms of his hands. Perhaps he had them where his eyelashes were, and it hurt him to even blink. As disturbing as my mental picture is of this scenario, this sad creature isn't even as bad off as this boar, whose tusks grew up and curled until they punctured his brain.
This is a perfect example of a detrimental trait being preserved because it doesn't hurt the animal enough to kill it before it mates. So we don't have to jump right from benefit to benefit. The road to a new beneficial trait might be long, going backwards most of the way, and filled with a lot of stabbed brains and eyelids.
Walking backwards most of the time, uphill both ways, and across caltrops almost the entire trip?
I have to admit, thinking about walking along such a path sounds like, at very least, a very depressing way to get from A to B. I would hope there would be a better way.
How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Moderator: Moderators
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3493
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1130 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1371[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1369]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Sure it would. If we find microbial life on another planet and it didn't come from Earth somehow, then it would prove that life can form elsewhere. We have found material from Mars on Earth, and of course asteroids travel through space great distances and hit Earth regularly. Panspermia is nothing new ... it has been around for over 2500 years:No, it would not. What is the difference between having faith in the material vs. having faith in the supernatural?
With this whole new idea of panspermia is simply an admission that there is no evidence on earth that life could have started here. So now the materialist is placing their faith in the universe just like those that believe in pantheism or panpsychism. In fact, many materialists speak of the universe in panpsychism terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
The resurrection is a historical story, not a fact. So a conclusion that god exists based on the resurrection story is not a proof ... it is conjecture.I have already demonstrated in a different thread that the resurrection of Jesus proves that God does exist. The resurrection is a historical fact.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6623 times
- Been thanked: 3219 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1372Response to James Tour: (Part 1 of 2)Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:37 pm Well Tour - a highly respected chemist (here's a list of his peer reviewed publications) - disagrees that chemistry and physics have the capacity to form the structures we see in life and his reasons are highly credible, the belief that all these things can "just happen" is just a belief and we never see these things emerge in nature or even in a well equipped lab manned by teams of experts, they don't happen.
In this Part 1, we discuss how James pretends to be an expert on origin of life research but objectively isn't, and how he deliberately ignores mountains of research regarding the emergence of homochirality.
Response to James Tour: (Part 2 of 2)
In this Part 2, we examine how James is lying about our progress towards prebiotic syntheses of all the major classes of biomolecules, and when it comes to cells, James would rather mislead his viewers with dazzling animations of modern eukaryotic cells than actually dig into the relevant literature. If you thought Part 1 was devastating, strap in.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1373Half baked rebuttals by pseudo scientists are very easy to find, you need to improve the quality of your sources.brunumb wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:44 amResponse to James Tour: (Part 1 of 2)Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:37 pm Well Tour - a highly respected chemist (here's a list of his peer reviewed publications) - disagrees that chemistry and physics have the capacity to form the structures we see in life and his reasons are highly credible, the belief that all these things can "just happen" is just a belief and we never see these things emerge in nature or even in a well equipped lab manned by teams of experts, they don't happen.
In this Part 1, we discuss how James pretends to be an expert on origin of life research but objectively isn't, and how he deliberately ignores mountains of research regarding the emergence of homochirality.
Response to James Tour: (Part 2 of 2)
In this Part 2, we examine how James is lying about our progress towards prebiotic syntheses of all the major classes of biomolecules, and when it comes to cells, James would rather mislead his viewers with dazzling animations of modern eukaryotic cells than actually dig into the relevant literature. If you thought Part 1 was devastating, strap in.
I was already aware of "Dave" because I always seek out rebuttals myself, always wise to know what one's opponents are thinking and saying.
Here's what I found: “Professor Dave” Goes After Eminent Chemist James Tour
Bear in mind to that "Professor Dave" is not actually a professor.I don’t think origin of life researchers will be too pleased with a video so hopelessly flawed that it makes the community look dumb. If I were Prof. D. I would discretely remove this video. Dead serious.
Some of us with PhD’s in organic chemistry actually understood Tour’s arguments. Where to start with all Prof. D’s errors? I’ll stop at half a dozen.
This is the video you should have posted, a competent scientist who disagrees with Tour:
If you take the time to watch that debate, you'll soon notice it all boils down to Cronin abandoning the existing biological definition of life and making up a new one. One that matches some of the results of some experiments he's performed - voilà we created life !
Tour on the other hand insists that the established biological definition of life should be retained and our achievements measured with respect to that definition, why on earth would any scientifically educated person not agree with Tour on this central point?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Tue May 24, 2022 11:20 am, edited 7 times in total.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1374[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1371]
Are you saying that Christianity does not exist and the resurrection has not always been the central message of Christianity?
Are you saying that Jesus never lived?
Are you saying that Jesus never died by Crucifixion?
Are you saying that the Disciples never believed they saw the risen Jesus?
Are you saying that the Disciples were not radially changed?
Or are you simply saying that history is not knowable?
The last option is probably your safest option but feel free to come up with one of your own also.
What makes you think that abiogenesis is more likely to occur somewhere else in the Milky Way than here on Earth? This story still does not explain how life can go from a genome of 4.5E6 nucleotides to 3.6E9 nucleotides here on earth.Sure it would. If we find microbial life on another planet and it didn't come from Earth somehow, then it would prove that life can form elsewhere. We have found material from Mars on Earth, and of course, asteroids travel through space great distances and hit Earth regularly. Panspermia is nothing new ... it has been around for over 2500 years:
You read the discussion that Dfflugia and I had. What part of the resurrection are you saying is not a fact? (this discussion starts here viewtopic.php?p=1072714#p1072714 and ends here viewtopic.php?p=1077183#p1077183 )The resurrection is a historical story, not a fact. So a conclusion that god exists based on the resurrection story is not a proof ... it is conjecture.
Are you saying that Christianity does not exist and the resurrection has not always been the central message of Christianity?
Are you saying that Jesus never lived?
Are you saying that Jesus never died by Crucifixion?
Are you saying that the Disciples never believed they saw the risen Jesus?
Are you saying that the Disciples were not radially changed?
Or are you simply saying that history is not knowable?
The last option is probably your safest option but feel free to come up with one of your own also.
Last edited by EarthScienceguy on Tue May 24, 2022 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3274 times
- Been thanked: 2022 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1375Have you read the discussion that you and I had? What part of that discussion do you think you won?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:05 amYou read the discussion that Dfflugia and I had. What part of the resurrection are you saying is not a fact?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1376[Replying to Difflugia in post #1375]
The entire thing. You failed on every one of your arguments. SorryHave you read the discussion that you and I had? What part of that discussion do you think you won?
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3274 times
- Been thanked: 2022 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1377The soft part of me hopes you never find out otherwise.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 10:24 amThe entire thing. You failed on every one of your arguments. SorryHave you read the discussion that you and I had? What part of that discussion do you think you won?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1378[Replying to Difflugia in post #1377]
Any time you want to go spiraling down in defeat again fill free. Until then chalk another one up for the Earthscience guy.The soft part of me hopes you never find out otherwise.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1379[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1376]
I never said I think abiogenesis is more likely outside of Earth rather than on Earth. And we don't know what the first life forms were or how many nucleotides it had (or exactly how it formed). Panspermia is just the idea that it could have formed outside of Earth ... even before Earth formed ... and got transported here by some means at some point. It is an unproven hypothesis, but if we were to find microbial life (or life of any kind) outside of our planet or solar system, it would lend support to the idea that Panspermia is at least possible.What makes you think that abiogenesis is more likely to occur somewhere else in the Milky Way than here on Earth? This story still does not explain how life can go from a genome of 4.5E6 nucleotides to 3.6E9 nucleotides here on earth.
The resurrection part. I can happily believe that a preacher called Jesus was crucified by the Romans, but what happened to the body after death is much less clear. It is a story in a holy book (along with other stories of the dead being brought back to life), but to claim it is a "fact" is going too far. It would indeed be a "miracle", and if you believe that things like miracles are real events, then by all means argue that the resurrection miracle happened. But it isn't a "fact."What part of the resurrection are you saying is not a fact?
Christianity clearly exists as there are millions of practitioners all over the world. It is a very large, organized religion. I think most adherents do belive that the resurrection happened and is central to the religion.Are you saying that Christianity does not exist and the resurrection has not always been the central message of Christianity?
No.Are you saying that Jesus never lived?
No.Are you saying that Jesus never died by Crucifixion?
So the story goes, but I don't believe they actually did see a physically risen Jesus. Maybe they had too much mead or wine, or engaged in some sort of self-hypnosis and had "visions", or something like that. Or (more likely IMHO) maybe it is all just part of a made up narrative to support the burgeoning new religion and create a good story. Who knows.Are you saying that the Disciples never believed they saw the risen Jesus?
See previous comment. I never met any of the Disciples.Are you saying that the Disciples were not radially changed?
Some of it isn't, and some may be storytelling that is open to interpretation as to the validity of the stories. Second hand and third hand accounts are less reliable than original accounts.Or are you simply saying that history is not knowable?
My bet would be that the resurrection account was made up as part of the effort to legitimize the claim of a Messiah and elevate Jesus to that position as part of the building of the religion.The last option is probably your safest option but feel free to come up with one of your own also.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1380EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 12:30 pmI don't deny that. But Alexei A Sharov Laboratory of Genetics, National Institute on Aging (NIA/NIH) does place parameters around the extent that the size can change.Jose Fly wrote:You're completely dodging the point. ERV's are viral insertions that increase the size of genomes. Do you deny that?
Well I guess it's progress to see you acknowledge that genomes do increase in size, and even do so exponentially over time.Although the global increase of genome sizes from bacteria to mammals is a well-known fact, no attempt has been made to model this process. The total genome size appeared highly variable among organisms with the same level of morphological complexity, a phenomenon known as a C-value paradox. These variations in genome size are caused mostly by gene duplication, polyploidy, and accumulation/deletion of intergenic DNA https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1526419/
But then as we'll see below, you seemingly contradict yourself in the same post.
Um....did you even read what you quoted? The mechanisms by which genome sizes increase (gene duplication, polyploidy, and accumulation/deletion of intergenic DNA) are the theory. When he says no one has modeled the process, he's talking about how no one has constructed a complete model of the ~4 billion history of first life-->mammals. Given all the complexities, variables, and unknowns (e.g., the genome of the first organisms) that's not surprising.1. He says that there "has been no attempt to model the increase in size from bacteria to mammals.' This means that evolution has no theory for the change in the size of the genome from bacteria to complex organisms. So any reason why this would happen is simply your imagination running away with you.
You're not making sense. I've no idea how you got that about Lenski's experiment from Sharov's paper. First of all, the part you claim to be quoting isn't in the paper. The closest is "The total genome size appeared highly variable among organisms with the same level of morphological complexity, a phenomenon known as a C-value paradox", which is quite different than what you put in quotes.2. Alexei also says that the "genome is only variable among organisms with the same level of morphological complexity."
In other words, the e-coli in Lenski's experiment after 70K generations is still e-coli. Meaning that the size of the genome is still relatively the same.
Second, we know that genome sizes are variable among organisms with differing levels of complexity, such as the oft-cited case of the onion genome being 5 times larger than the human genome. That's actually what the C-value paradox is.
You dodged the questions. Care to try again?Earthscienceguy wrote:As cited above observational science indicates that the size of the genome can only change within specific parameters. You keep wanting to jump to theoretical arguments when evolutionary theory does not have any theoretical arguments according to Sharov.Jose Fly wrote:Do you deny that ERVs increase genome size? Do you deny that nucleotide insertions occur? Do you deny that they increase genome size?
Also, again you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Sharov wrote (see above).
So now you're disputing that speciation occurs? Are you back to disputing that genomes increase in size, even though you cited a paper that describes how they do so?Observational science that the Lenski's experiments provide indicates that after 70k generations there have been no new species and the genome size has not increased.
You're not making sense ESG.
Wow....this makes zero sense and you're all over the map. How about we clear things up and start with the basics?At this point, it must be reiterated that observational science indicates that there has been no change in the size of the genome in 70K generations. Nor has there been any specialization in a species that is highly adaptable in its acceptance of changes in its genome.
Since there has not been any change in the size of the genome in the Lenski experiment, that would indicate that according to observational science the actual time frame of change is infinite.
Do you deny that genomes increase in size?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.